Cancer WWYD

pistolpete

pistolpete

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 July 2009
Messages
5,896
Visit site
My springer had a tumour removed from her armpit last August, biopsy showed it was malignant. We tought when it came back we would have to have her PTS, vet now saying might be operable again. She is insured and is ten years old. Should I let them operate again? What no one can tell me is how long she will survive post-op. so hard to put her through a lot again.
 
Does she have to have any follow up treatment? Do you trust your vet to be honest with you, and tell you whether it is worth putting your dog through another operation, further anaesthetic? Are there any canine cancer forums where you can learn more? Perhaps CHC website might be able to help.
 
Carcinoma, she will have a CT scan on Wednesday so we don't have to guess whether she has advanced secondaries. Was all geared up to PTS when time came but apart from lump, she seems so well.
 
You've asked WWYD.

Me? I'd ignore my vet's attempts at stringing out further ops on a 10 yo dog which will suffer until it's put down. I'd take NO further action. I'd await the down turn in the dog's health, when it gets to the stage where it isn't enjoying life, and then I'd take the dog back to my vet, and offer him my final instructions. That's what I'd do.

What I wouldn't do is allow a vet, through your valued insurance (;)) to run up a massive bill at the expense, not of your Insurers, but the Dog.

I'd also check with your Insurers that they are prepared to support a second claim for the same area of complaint. I'm sorry to be brutal in this, but very few Vets are the altruistic people that we imagine.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
You've asked WWYD.

Me? I'd ignore my vet's attempts at stringing out further ops on a 10 yo dog which will suffer until it's put down. I'd take NO further action. I'd await the down turn in the dog's health, when it gets to the stage where it isn't enjoying life, and then I'd take the dog back to my vet, and offer him my final instructions. That's what I'd do.

What I wouldn't do is allow a vet, through your valued insurance (;)) to run up a massive bill at the expense, not of your Insurers, but the Dog.

I'd also check with your Insurers that they are prepared to support a second claim for the same area of complaint. I'm sorry to be brutal in this, but very few Vets are the altruistic people that we imagine.

Alec.
Click to expand...

How right you are! These vets that spin out tests etc until the inevitable end,does it profit anything except their pocket?A dog is dying..but they MUST convince the owner ..on insurance of course..that it is essential to find out why it is dying,and possibly extend the period ,again with insurance money.Dogs deserve a bit of respect and dignity in my opinion,not to be used as labrats to line someone`s pocket.Do exactly as Alec says!
 
We operated on our 10yo after his second tumour, we got an extra 3 years. If yours is healthy, I would seriously consider it
 
If it were me, i would go for the CT scan and see if there are any mets. If its just that mass you have found i would take it off. Please dont write off the surgery, 10 isnt old to operate on. If theres mets in the chest/abdo then i would keep her comfortable until she tells you otherwise.

You could always seek the opinion of an oncologist?

Not all vets are out to make money, i dont think offering a CT scan is a money making plan, think its a very good idea. x
 
Totally with Alec on this one, sorry. People can tell you if they're in pain with cancer which we can't see but animals don't have that option; I would rather lose my dog than be responsible for possibly unknowingly inflicting pain from cancer. There are many things I would continue treating but cancer isn't one of them, sorry.
 
Thanks folks, totally agreed with Alec until recently, just having a major wobble as she deteriorates. I have worked with vets for the last twenty years so I know how they think. I don't trust them completely but do think they get carried away. One comment the vet made this morning made me shudder, he said 'everything is operable'! Just want my dear little dog to have more time if it's not too late for her. Will go on Wednesday and let them scan her I think.
 
Have to say i'd seriously consider putting her through an op again TBH. I'm in a similar situation just now - my staffie X has a thyroid tumour the size of a tennis ball very deep in her throat. It would be dangerous to remove surgically as it's very close to vital structures. She has had two lumps removed already when she was about 8 & has another 3 lumps around her body just now that the vet has kept an eye on for some years but never advised removing as they don't bother her & aren't likely to. The one in her throat is a different matter - sooner or later it will start to affect her breathing - so far i have noticed just a slight change in the tone of her bark. I will not put her through risky surgery at her age (the vet doesn't think it's advisable either), i will allow her to carry on until she finds she is no longer comfortable & then i will allow her to go with the dignity she deserves before she begins to suffer.

I wish you all the best in whatever decision you make for you dog. xx
 
I can only ofer my very personal view based on our family experiences: Lab 10 yo, growths removed twice within a year, she had a horrid time post each op and my Father had to insist she was PTS when vet suggested a 3rd go. Old English Sheepdog, again 2 goes at removing cancerous tissues, was pts after spending days of misery. Third and last my elderly retriever (16 yo) growth in throat, couldn't eat and barely breathe - vet was willing to 'try' to remove it, however I asked for pts at the time.

What would I do if presented with the scenario again? Probably pts given past experiences. I would add that all were insured and the first two had vet bills of mega proportions. Current dog isn't insured, we self insure by saving but I think it can polarise one to make the 'right' decision if that suits your mental process in such horrid decisions.
 
For me it would depend on how she coped with the first surgery and the recovery and then on what an oncologist recommends.

I have been seeing Jane Dobson at Cambridge Vet School with my dog and she is lovely. My girl is having radiotherapy and they have been very straight forward with what it will and will not do for her. Worth seeking an opinion at least I would think, it will help you make your mind up.
 
it tends to be farmer/working types who always believe vets don't have the animals best interest at heart because normally they themselves don't-being more interested in the monetary value and a dogs working ability than it's health.
very few vets are in it for the money, I have yet to see an assistant vet driving a car representative of this 'money grabbing' culture these types think they are... most vets I meet are concerned with the treatment that gives the most benefit with least drawbacks and fits the owners pocket..
it sounds like the treatment you are being offered is palliative. a surgery unless the lump is large is actually not that major realistically-with a ten to 14 day recover period normal. unless the lump is fast growing of there is other problems you could get another good time period out of this,
 
I had Tassy's operated on the 17th march last year she gave us another 3 months. Part of me felt like we were doing it for us and not fur her but for about a month after the op she acted like a puppy so part of me feels it was worth it for her too. The vet wanted to do chemo etc to find more time but we declined and felt we wanted her to go when she was ready with dignity and not because the vet could make more cash of her....
 
I've just watched a friend go through all sorts of treatment to try and save her dog from cancer, she got three months from diagnosis and the dog was in more pain and distress from the treatment than she was from just being left until a point where pts was best.

Only person who can really decide is you quality over quantity of life is the only thing that really matters. So sorry your having to face this decision :(
 
SusieT said:
it tends to be farmer/working types who always believe vets don't have the animals best interest at heart because normally they themselves don't-being more interested in the monetary value and a dogs working ability than it's health.
very few vets are in it for the money, I have yet to see an assistant vet driving a car representative of this 'money grabbing' culture these types think they are... most vets I meet are concerned with the treatment that gives the most benefit with least drawbacks and fits the owners pocket..
it sounds like the treatment you are being offered is palliative. a surgery unless the lump is large is actually not that major realistically-with a ten to 14 day recover period normal. unless the lump is fast growing of there is other problems you could get another good time period out of this,
Click to expand...

I've asked you the question before, and it bears repeating, "Have you been drinking"? To suggest that a Vet works for any other reason than their own well being, is living with the fairies.

Have one qualified Vet, come on here and assure me that they act, AND ADVISE in the best interest of the animal, rather than the well being of their own practise, and I'll believe your naive and simplistic statements.

Alec.

ps, My interests in my animals isn't in any way influenced by the fact that I farm, but by the fact that I have lived my life, considering the well being of my responsibilities, and unlike so many, I put their well being, before my own selfish well being. Does that make sense to you?
 
Last edited:
Oooo Alec that is rather harsh. MOST vets I have worked with have 100% had the animals best interested come first. I have worked with a few who were in it for the money but not many.
 
Op I would have the scan and see if it's spread. If its just the tumour then have it removed. When you start talking about chemotherapy then that's a different decision ( and one I personally would never put my dog through). Good luck, it sounds to me like your vet is advising you well xx
 
toffeeyummy said:
Oooo Alec that is rather harsh. MOST vets I have worked with have 100% had the animals best interested come first. I have worked with a few who were in it for the money but not many.
Click to expand...

Honestly? And when the poor creature has a £5k limit on the insurance, do they recommend pointless and painful extensions of life?

When there is no insurance, do they recommend that "Perhaps we should consider what's best for poor Fido"?

You will be working with a different set of vets than I do! ;)

Alec.
 
When the animal is insured, all treatment options are offered. The client decides. When they are not insured, all treatment options are offered. The client decides. :)
 
What kind of pointless and painful extensions exactly? do you ever consider that it is an option for owners to get better treatment if they can afford it i.e are insured, and if not then they maybe can't afford the better treament option so the only option is to euthanase or go for a cheaper, probably less optimal treatment option?
No.. must be those horrible vets who really should be able to treat everything for a fiver and make every dog instantly healthy or it's not worth it...can't work after all with three legs/too expensive to give life time medication...
 
'I've asked you the question before, and it bears repeating, "Have you been drinking"? To suggest that a Vet works for any other reason than their own well being, is living with the fairies.

Have one qualified Vet, come on here and assure me that they act, AND ADVISE in the best interest of the animal, rather than the well being of their own practise, and I'll believe your naive and simplistic statements.

Alec.

ps, My interests in my animals isn't in any way influenced by the fact that I farm, but by the fact that I have lived my life, considering the well being of my responsibilities, and unlike so many, I put their well being, before my own selfish well being. Does that make sense to you? '

No-you put having a dog that to you is aesthetically pleasing-i.e young and in full health. ahead of considerations that others know better than you in your dotage doing 'what you'd always done'....
Hate to tell you but ethics is a huge part of vet life, there are bad eggs in every profession.
Vaccination is probably something just to line their pockets rather than to fight disease? Fracture repair-definitely not because the animal needs it.. just because vets want money. in fact I'm sure i've seen my vets out breaking legs of a saturday night.....
out of hours work, calving, c-sections, prolapses-all purely for the money not the animals welfare?
 
SusieT said:
What kind of pointless and painful extensions exactly? do you ever consider that it is an option for owners to get better treatment if they can afford it i.e are insured, and if not then they maybe can't afford the better treament option so the only option is to euthanase or go for a cheaper, probably less optimal treatment option?

So let me get this straight, as you seem to have a better understanding than I, perhaps you can explain to me; a dog comes in to a surgery, 10-12-14 years, something like that, with what even a fool can see are cancerous attached lumps to the poor creatures body. Any fool can see that the dog is going through the gradual process of dying, and it has cancer. The dog is insured, so the options of a biopsy are offered, WITH THE PROVISO that as the first tests may be inconclusive (at £750 a time ;)), so there may well be a need for further biopsies. The dog may live through a great deal of torment and suffering, and when the insurance money has run out, then we will need to consider the unfortunate animal, as we would have done the one which wasn't insured, and the one which the vet thought would benefit if we were to put the poor creature's feelings and well being, before our own.

No.. must be those horrible vets who really should be able to treat everything for a fiver and make every dog instantly healthy or it's not worth it...can't work after all with three legs/too expensive to give life time medication... I wont work for nothing and neither do I expect others to, but what I do expect is that professionals face up to their claimed for hypothesis, the one where they consider their patient, before their own well being.
Click to expand...

You obviously know a totally different set of vets, with different principles, than I do! :D

Alec.
 
toffeeyummy said:
When the animal is insured, all treatment options are offered. And encouraged? The client decides. When they are not insured, all treatment options are offered. And encouraged?The client decides. :)
Click to expand...

The point is that when it's known that a pet isn't insured, then the options are quite different from one that is insured. The problem with the poor creature which IS an insured animal, is that the insurance is milked, at the expense and suffering of the animal. Believe otherwise and you don't live in a real world. I'm sorry, but it's called business, and I still await a qualified vet who will tell me that I'm wrong. ;)

Alec.
 
750 a time-what type of biopsy are you vets doing? A dog with cancer is not dying-a dog with a cancer which has spread to other parts of the body yes is probably dying- a locally invasive cancer may be cured/slowed for years by removal. What is torment about an anaesthetic and surgery with adequate pain relief? most surgeries the dog is bouncing back within a few days-wound healed by 2 weeks-that's a lot of 'torment' you are attributing to that....
you are aware a biopsy of an obvious lump involves well... a small wound that rarely causes the dog any pain?? You do live in cloud cuckoo land with vets in your mind apparantly operating on concious animals to cause the amount of torment you attribute to it..
 
have you ever had an insured animal alec? Are you aware most people can't afford more than a few hundred if their animal isn't insured/ The options for diagnosis and treatment at a few hundred are minimal compared to at even one thousand pounds. i think you are the one not living in the real world-typical farmer! I'm bowing out-as we are deviating from the original post-back to protecting my animals from those bone breaking vets driving sports cars...
 
Alec Swan said:
I've asked you the question before, and it bears repeating, "Have you been drinking"? To suggest that a Vet works for any other reason than their own well being, is living with the fairies.

Have one qualified Vet, come on here and assure me that they act, AND ADVISE in the best interest of the animal, rather than the well being of their own practise, and I'll believe your naive and simplistic statements.
Click to expand...

*Pops head up* I can honestly say that I do, and TBH find the above comment a little offensive to myself and all the MANY other vets I know who would say the same. I work long hours for crap pay, probably considerably less than a lot of people on here who continually bash us 'money-grabbing' vets.

Yesterday, I was up at 5.30am calving a cow. This morning, I was called in early (had to leave someone else to finish doing my horse) to see an old horse that needed PTS, because the on call vet was already out at an emergency and I was closest. I didn't have lunch today because instead I went to see an old horse belonging to a frail old lady who wanted a quick check up - I won't charge for this because there was nothing really wrong and she just wanted a bit of reassurance.

It makes not a jot of difference to me if an animal is insured, I will offer what I consider to be the best course of action for that animal. I will as quickly offer PTS to an animal I feel is suffering that is insured as not insured, likewise where applicable I will offer referral to everyone if I think it is needed.

To the OP - only you know your dog well enough to make that decision. 10yo isn't that old in a lot of dogs, and in terms of anaesthetic risk/recovery I would be no more worried about a healthy 10yo than I would a 6yo. For me, the sticking point would be that this mass has returned quite quickly if only removed 6 months ago. Had it been removed a year or 2 ago I would go for it as long as dog was well, but realistically even if no mets, the mass could return even quicker next time. I think I would have to weigh up how well she came through her last surgery vs how much time she may have left - if she bounced back straight away, then I'd consider it, if she needed lots of post-op care etc last time then I would be a bit more reluctant, and would probably lean towards letting her keep going until she starts to struggle.
 
Whoa hello bold typing!! I think it's very sad that you think vets are all in it for the money. You have to remember that most practices these days are run by one maybe two or three partners and their associates, who will be salaried. Vets work very hard. They train very hard. Of course the partners are also running a business but I do not in any way know any vet right now who would offer a treatment to a hopeless case or try and make money from a terminal pet. When an animal is insured it gives both the vet and the owner the luxury of being able to have more blood tests/tests/treatments. When the animal is not insured, unless you are a rich person, then these luxuries are not available and you have to decide what is the best route for your pets quality of life and your pocket. And a vet can guide you on this. The last thing they want is an unpaid debt on their accounts because they offered treatment the client couldn't afford.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top